KeithE wrote:Well according to the FBI study above, it is 40% (sample size is only 160, America’s population is 324 million, so the margin of error is 7.75%).

OK. Thanks. I guess I missed that focusing on the other 40%.

Since the sample size is the number of active shooting incidents studied (160) to get the 40% ending in suicides (and not population), you wouldn't compare to total population to get the margin of error, would you? Not following you there.

What laws can be passed to get the guns out of the hands of criminals and those mentally ill?

It is too easy to get guns illegally.

Why should the citizen who is trained... a hobbyist... sane... collector... have to forfeit their rights just to remain legal when the laws will not purge the guns from the criminal and mentally ill?

If a sane, non-criminal gun owner wants to own a thousand guns and some of them be an AK15 type, who is he hurting? If he wants to go shooting at the range or on the backside of his ranch, why should the fearmongers get their say over this fine citizen?

Jon Estes wrote:What laws can be passed to get the guns out of the hands of criminals and those mentally ill?

It is too easy to get guns illegally.

Why should the citizen who is trained... a hobbyist... sane... collector... have to forfeit their rights just to remain legal when the laws will not purge the guns from the criminal and mentally ill?

If a sane, non-criminal gun owner wants to own a thousand guns and some of them be an AK15 type, who is he hurting? If he wants to go shooting at the range or on the backside of his ranch, why should the fearmongers get their say over this fine citizen?

We all have charts.

More guns... less killings.

Congrats, Jon - some good data there, I like that. More on that later in this reply.

But first, as for Jon’s line and logic

It is too easy to get guns illegally.

So don’t make it illegal.

Why does he not apply this logic to abortion? or theft? or prostitution? Abortion and theft and prostitution (the world’s oldest profession) will not end no matter what the law is.

Just because something cannot be ended does not mean it should be legal.------------Now let’s take a closer look at the DATA!!

Note that since 2000 the homicide rate is about constant in Jon's plots. Thus the anti-correlation (between homicide rate and guns owned per person), that your plot at first blush supports, is not consistent. We need to look at other causes. It is general thought that the great drop in homicide rate in the 90’s is more due to the improved economic condition during the Clinton years. But I realize I need to provide more evidence here.

And another dataset from CBS/NYT confirms the % of households with any guns has slowly declined to 36% by June 2016 (consistent with the Gallup/GSS data).

At first blush one would say these 3 datasets (Gallup/GSS/CBS&NYT) contradict Jon’s AEI plots. The AEI says gun ownership has increased from 1994 -2010 (the overlapping period) while the Gallup/GSS data declined over the same period. But not really. Note that the Gallup/GSS and CBS/NYT plots I added was about % of households that own guns; while the AEI plots show that the number of guns per person has increased. The obvious conclusion is that many people (mostly macho Rambo-ite men, I would dare to guess) are buying multiple guns for whatever reason. Also note the GSS data shows a marked increase in “pistols or shotguns for the home” from 10% in 2004 to 20% in 1998. My tentative conclusions are:1) some are amassing arsenals (not a good sign)2) some are buying single shot guns for home protection (good sign if they train all in the household)3) the multiple guns per person is not consistently lowering homicide rates - more work will be needed to see if other crime is being affected by this rush of buying multiple guns.

But good try Jon. If the homicide rates had decreased markedly during the 1999 to 2014 period, you would have a good argument.

Informed by Data.Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.

That's a misconception, really. I mean, I get the argument, that the only people who will be able to get guns when they are outlawed are criminals, yadda yadda yadda, blah, blah, blah. Populist mythology. Guns are so easy to get legally, that there really isn't all that much of a need to get them illegally. If you look at the mass shootings in the US in the past five years, the facts debunk the populist myths. Most of the weapons used were purchased within a few miles of where they were used, legally, without much in the way of background checking or accountability.

There are other countries in the world that have as much of a basic right to bear arms as we do, but they don't have the mass shootings. What they have is accountability and reasonable expectations.

KeithE wrote:Well according to the FBI study above, it is 40% (sample size is only 160, America’s population is 324 million, so the margin of error is 7.75%).

OK. Thanks. I guess I missed that focusing on the other 40%.

Since the sample size is the number of active shooting incidents studied (160) to get the 40% ending in suicides (and not population), you wouldn't compare to total population to get the margin of error, would you? Not following you there.

Sorry I missed this. I did make a mistake. The “population" should not have been the population of the USA, but the total number of active shooters incidences between 2000-2013 which was 160. So there really wasn’t any sampling-related Margin of Error because the FBI did not sample the 160 incidents, but used them all. I really got mixed up - it was late (10:48pm CST).

The 40% was based on 64 out the 160 active shooting situations that ended by suicide in that 2000-2013 period. I would need to find the yearly data from 2000-2013 and determine how many each year were ended by suicide.

Well I found the yearly active shooter data but not how many ended by suicide per year. All I know is that total active shooting incidences are growing and most end with suicide at least in 2000-2013.

My point in this chartis that armed citizens using their guns is not a major factor in ending most active shooting situations. Thus the argument that we should arm all to prevent these troubled people from killing more people, is specious.

In my estimation, more identification of the troubled people and providing 1) more surveillance of those, especially those who own guns and 2) more mental health treatment to all.

Informed by Data.Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.

I'm not sure that statement can be substantiated. That's a populist perspective, but I've seen no evidence to support it. When guns are so easy to get legally, with virtually no restriction, as cheaply as they are available in the US, there's no need for much of a black market. Enforcing gun laws is a matter of accountability, responsibility, and will. There are other countries in the world where the right to bear arms is at least as liberal as it is in the US, and they don't have problems with mass shootings or illegal guns everywhere. No reason why that can't happen in the US.

Part of Jon's statement is on target. Stolen guns are a big part of the market, and gun thefts work so well because so many gun owners, afraid of government and even of their own insurance companies, never register serial number of their firearms, even on their insurance. Having failed to register these, then when they are stolen, they become totally untraceable. That feeds the gun market. Having worked in a 911-center and being responsible to enter theft reports, I can attest to how often no serial numbers were provided to officers so that the guns could be traced and gotten off the market, black or gun show markets?

"God will never be less than He is and does not need to be more" (John Koessler)

Dave Roberts wrote:Part of Jon's statement is on target. Stolen guns are a big part of the market, and gun thefts work so well because so many gun owners, afraid of government and even of their own insurance companies, never register serial number of their firearms, even on their insurance. Having failed to register these, then when they are stolen, they become totally untraceable. That feeds the gun market. Having worked in a 911-center and being responsible to enter theft reports, I can attest to how often no serial numbers were provided to officers so that the guns could be traced and gotten off the market, black or gun show markets?

But anything that reduces guns and aids law enforcement when those guns are misused is helpful. The fact that a propose law will not work perfectly is no reason to not move forward with that law.

Informed by Data.Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.

Dave Roberts wrote:Part of Jon's statement is on target. Stolen guns are a big part of the market, and gun thefts work so well because so many gun owners, afraid of government and even of their own insurance companies, never register serial number of their firearms, even on their insurance. Having failed to register these, then when they are stolen, they become totally untraceable. That feeds the gun market. Having worked in a 911-center and being responsible to enter theft reports, I can attest to how often no serial numbers were provided to officers so that the guns could be traced and gotten off the market, black or gun show markets?

But anything that reduces guns and aids law enforcement when those guns are misused is helpful. The fact that a propose law will not work perfectly is no reason to not move forward with that law.

Perhaps failure to register serial numbers ought to be illegal, and previous owners who do not register them be held liable as accessories to any crimes committed using their former, stolen guns. Of course, the law would be pretty much unenforceable, since in the absence of registered serial numbers, proving that a recovered gun is theirs would be nigh impossible.

Dave Roberts wrote:Part of Jon's statement is on target. Stolen guns are a big part of the market, and gun thefts work so well because so many gun owners, afraid of government and even of their own insurance companies, never register serial number of their firearms, even on their insurance. Having failed to register these, then when they are stolen, they become totally untraceable. That feeds the gun market. Having worked in a 911-center and being responsible to enter theft reports, I can attest to how often no serial numbers were provided to officers so that the guns could be traced and gotten off the market, black or gun show markets?

Accountability ends this problem. Most European countries use a computer chip system that is almost impossible to alter, especially in attaching the serial number to the gun, and register the number to whatever government ID the owner submits when purchasing it. If the gun is stolen, or lost, it gets reported. If not, then if it turns up being used in a crime, the owner is held accountable. The Swiss have more guns, per capita, than Americans do, but they have an almost insignificant percentage of gun crimes, and accidental or deliberate shootings, and no mass shootings. Their right to bear arms is supported and upheld by strict control and accountability which does not interfere with citizen's rights. There's no reason why the US can't do the same. And they have a much higher percentage of their population who are expatriates, and foreigners, mostly from the Middle East and North Africa, so the idea that it's not America and we can't do the same doesn't wash.

Dave Roberts wrote:Part of Jon's statement is on target. Stolen guns are a big part of the market, and gun thefts work so well because so many gun owners, afraid of government and even of their own insurance companies, never register serial number of their firearms, even on their insurance. Having failed to register these, then when they are stolen, they become totally untraceable. That feeds the gun market. Having worked in a 911-center and being responsible to enter theft reports, I can attest to how often no serial numbers were provided to officers so that the guns could be traced and gotten off the market, black or gun show markets?

But anything that reduces guns and aids law enforcement when those guns are misused is helpful. The fact that a propose law will not work perfectly is no reason to not move forward with that law.

If a proposed law does not keep guns out of the hands of criminals, then the law is useless. I have seen no law designed to get guns out of the criminals hands.

Dave Roberts wrote:Part of Jon's statement is on target. Stolen guns are a big part of the market, and gun thefts work so well because so many gun owners, afraid of government and even of their own insurance companies, never register serial number of their firearms, even on their insurance. Having failed to register these, then when they are stolen, they become totally untraceable. That feeds the gun market. Having worked in a 911-center and being responsible to enter theft reports, I can attest to how often no serial numbers were provided to officers so that the guns could be traced and gotten off the market, black or gun show markets?

Accountability ends this problem. Most European countries use a computer chip system that is almost impossible to alter, especially in attaching the serial number to the gun, and register the number to whatever government ID the owner submits when purchasing it. If the gun is stolen, or lost, it gets reported. If not, then if it turns up being used in a crime, the owner is held accountable. The Swiss have more guns, per capita, than Americans do, but they have an almost insignificant percentage of gun crimes, and accidental or deliberate shootings, and no mass shootings. Their right to bear arms is supported and upheld by strict control and accountability which does not interfere with citizen's rights. There's no reason why the US can't do the same. And they have a much higher percentage of their population who are expatriates, and foreigners, mostly from the Middle East and North Africa, so the idea that it's not America and we can't do the same doesn't wash.

We can't even keep illegal people without passports out of the country, how do you think we will keep illegal guns without a chip out? It's a law that only affects the law abiding citizen.

Why not pass a law that says use a gun in a crime - any crime - 10 years minimum. Let the law enforcement go after those who use guns in a crime with force. Make it a felony (10 years minimum) if a person with a felony in possession of a gun gets 10 years minimum.

If you want gun control, control the criminal. If it fills the prisons up, then so be it.

Jon Estes wrote:We can't even keep illegal people without passports out of the country, how do you think we will keep illegal guns without a chip out? It's a law that only affects the law abiding citizen.

Why not pass a law that says use a gun in a crime - any crime - 10 years minimum. Let the law enforcement go after those who use guns in a crime with force. Make it a felony (10 years minimum) if a person with a felony in possession of a gun gets 10 years minimum.

If you want gun control, control the criminal. If it fills the prisons up, then so be it.

You can't control the border when you gut the enforcement budget to give tax cuts to the wealthy, like Bush did, which accounts for almost all of those currently in the country without papers. You can't keep giving the corporate business community free protection, and free law enforcement at the expense of the middle class, and expect to resolve problems like this.

I'd be all for a 10 year minimum penalty for committing a crime with a gun. That's great for after the fact, but it wouldn't stop mass shootings. That takes control and accountability. Law abiding citizens should not fear accountability, right? It works.

But lots of more or less law-abiding citizens *do* fear accountability, because they've been told by people they trust more than they trust the govenrment that "Obama's coming for your guns" and so on.

Haruo wrote:But lots of more or less law-abiding citizens *do* fear accountability, because they've been told by people they trust more than they trust the govenrment that "Obama's coming for your guns" and so on.

You'd think that the "Obama's coming for your guns" myth would have died by now, eleven months after he left office. Nothing he proposed putting into law would have taken a single gun away from a "law abiding citizen." We'll never know, unfortunately, how many people who are now dead would still be alive if those measures had passed and been enforced.

Can you catch them all? Maybe not. The Nevada shooter was a "law abiding citizen." So was the guy who peppered the members of Congress in the park in Alexandria, Virginia. The stonewalling and failure to allow accountability is not going to accomplish anything. It is also a position that is diametrically opposed to the sanctity of human life. You can't get around that.